scan vs enlarger

[Ken Lee]

As Ralph said, "...there is an increase in apparent sharpness."



Leonard Evens has written about apparent sharpness here and there, and while the mathematics eludes me at times, I know he's right: with even a little skill in Photoshop's unsharp mask, my digital prints are so "apparently" sharp, it's nuts.



I'm not at all surprised that a straight enlargement appears less sharp than a scan with post-processing - and that without enormous effort, the lab couldn't match your digital adjustments to contrast and tonality.



A lot of brilliant mathematicians, artists, photographers, and computer engineers worked hard to make Photoshop possible. That's why I shoot large format film, and then scan it, correct it in Photoshop, and print digitally.

[Julian_3496]

Hi Ernie, I've just been doing some side by side tests of the latest epson flatbeds, microtek, imacon, microtek 120 (this was all with 120 film)minolta multiscan pro. I rented each one and spent a week with each. Believe me, if you are shooting LF, any of these flatbeds is degrading the quality of your image. I ended up with the minolta which whilst not as good as the Imacon was good enough for me. There is no black magic to a scanner, you need sharp optics, good electrics and good film holders, this all costs. The film glass holders of the minolta gave edge to edge consistancy, whilst non of the flatbeds could do that where there was obvious differences. I'd ignore any magazine reviews until you do your own tests. However, everyone's milage may vary and they may suit your needs perfectly.